(by Alessandro Capezzuoli, ISTAT official and manager of the Aidr professions and skills data observatory) Science, a word that derives from the Latin scire, to know, is based on sharing. Unshared knowledge and knowledge are of little use to collective growth. Newton, in a letter addressed to Robert Hooke, wrote a sentence that perfectly summarizes this concept: “If I have seen further, it is because I was on the shoulders of giants”. Collective knowledge is the basis of any scientific discovery because it allows scholars to conduct research based on some kind of intuition, which derives from the errors and studies conducted and documented by others. There are very few insights that accelerate this process and radically change the way of thinking. The scientific method, of which Galileo Galilei was the protagonist, represented one of the most important paradigm changes in the history of science, a true cultural revolution through which mathematics replaced philosophy in the description of natural phenomena.
It can be said that modern science derives from the intuition of Galileo, who maintained that "Among the safe ways to achieve the truth is to put experiences to any discourse, being sure that in it, almanco fallacy, since it is not possible that a sensible experience is contrary to the truth ”. In essence, Galileo confidently maintains that any type of (philosophical) discourse contains "fallacy", while "sensible experience" is the only tool for achieving truth. At that time, such a thought was as revolutionary as the words that Jesus preached many centuries before: in fact Galileo paid him salty not with the crucifixion but with the excommunication and with the subsequent compulsion to abjuration. Observation is the starting condition for the study of any phenomenon.
Through observation it is possible to ask questions on the basis of which hypotheses can be formulated. When the hypotheses are clear, since physical, chemical, biological or sociological phenomena are usually very complex, it is necessary to schematize the phenomenon to reduce the level of complexity: just think of the launch of an object and the study of its trajectory , which depends on the shape, on the friction, on any perturbations and which is schematized in the trajectory of a point-like object. The schematization allows for the construction of a simplified model, which can be modified if necessary to add further degrees of complexity. The veracity of the hypotheses is subject to the experimental verification, which consists in the measurement, in the data collection and in the subsequent analysis. The data can confirm or disprove the hypothesis: in the first case a law can be formulated and predictions made, in the second case it is necessary to reformulate the hypothesis.
This long preamble is useful for asking a question: has the scientific method been applied to tackle the coronavirus epidemic? The answer is unfortunately no. In the absence of a balanced observation dictated by reason and not by fear, in the absence of an adequate hypothesis formulated consciously and not emotionally, in the absence of a method to investigate the characteristics of the spread of the epidemic and of the individuals involved, in the absence of a single national system of attribution of causes of death, the collection and analysis of data have not been structured with the right scientific rigor. The consequence of this macroscopic error is evident: from a wrong experiment it is not possible to formulate correct conclusions, if not accidentally. This incontrovertible evidence was totally ignored on the occasion of the emergency: the consequence was the adoption of medieval measures, sometimes blind, which perhaps contained the epidemic or perhaps gave the impression of containing it. Also in this case, lacking the rigor of the scientific method, it will never be possible to give an exact answer, as Newton did for example, formulating the principle of universal gravitation, observing, as legend has it, the famous apple falling to the ground.
Two months after the beginning of the epidemic, the government has entrusted Istat and the Istituto Superiore di Sanità with the task of conducting a serological survey on the population: better late than never. What are the objectives of policy makers? What do they expect to obtain from the results of the serological investigation? Istat says that "The aim of the investigation is to understand how many people have developed antibodies to Coronavirus, even in the absence of symptoms.
Through the investigation, information will be obtained to estimate the size and extent of the infection in the population and describe its frequency in relation to certain factors such as gender, age, region of belonging, economic activity. ". It is now clear that, compared to the epidemic, political decisions have been made by navigating on sight, based on more or less truthful scenarios obtained through weak and therefore unreliable data.
The serological survey should collect the data in a more structured way, to estimate how many people are immune in the country. At this moment, is commissioning ISTAT and ISS the assessment of immune individuals a right goal pursued at the right time, or is it yet another attempt to chase something with extreme delay at a time when the reasoning would be different? There is no doubt that, as regards the statistical aspects, having an orientation idea of the population group exposed to the risk of contagion, assuming that the antibodies to coronavirus guarantee a certain immunity over time, could have a certain interest.
The main problem, however, concerns the usefulness of this type of detection at a time when it is necessary to look further ahead, to guide the post-epidemic phase and have a clear picture of the social and economic measures to be prepared in the immediate future and in the case in which a second wave occurs. Moreover, it must be said that this is a sample survey and that "The sample design made by Istat provides for the observation of 150.000 individuals throughout the Italian territory. The information collected will be essential to direct policies at national or regional level and to modulate the measures to contain the contagion. The results of the survey, disseminated anonymously and in aggregate form, can be used for subsequent studies and for comparative analysis with other European countries. ". This aspect is quite decisive and further influences the results and objectives of the research that will be carried out. A statistical survey can be conducted on the entire population or on a representative sample of individuals: in the latter case, since there are no economic resources to carry out tests on the entire population, the representativeness and the design of the sample play a central role at least like the reliability of the measuring instruments (in this case the effectiveness and accuracy of the test on which a scientific debate is underway).
Through the sample survey, the situation is photographed at a certain moment, but the photograph, even if it would be more correct to say "measure", of the epidemiological state at a specific moment, may not have a great value, because the situation changes rapidly and ( perhaps) predictably through models of a different nature.
In short, the variables involved are many, too many. They range from unpredictable mutations of the virus to rising temperatures, from territorial and urban aspects to environmental and industrial ones, and, unfortunately, it is not possible to rigorously and scientifically schematize the phenomenon on the basis of a random sample that does not take these vulnerabilities into account . The time frame in which the situation is photographed, moreover, corresponds to the tail of the phenomenon, therefore it represents more an exercise in style than a utility service. To make a parallel with physics, it is like trying to describe the temperature variations of a liquid through a single measurement, when the liquid has cooled down, using a thermometer with a very low sensitivity and a very long response time. Probably, the serological investigation, at this moment, may not be the best tool to clarify the numerous knowledge holes introduced by the data collected by the Civil Protection and almost certainly it is not to give adequate answers to the many questions related to the phase post epidemic. It would have been, if it had the characteristics of a continuous investigation started at the right time, that is at the beginning of the epidemic. And even if it moves, Galileo Galilei would have said, stomping the ground and smiling mockingly after the abjuration, always more convinced of his scientific method.